Re: I-D.farrresnickel-harassment - timebomb

[Pete Resnick <presnick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 3/19/15 2:54 PM, Michael StJohns wrote:

Version -06 of draft-farresnickel-harassment has this small phrase that was added in this version:

Any definition of
harassment prohibited by an applicable law can be
   subject to this set of
procedures.

This was added at the behest of the attorneys that did the legal review.

I find "prohibited by an applicable law" to be somewhat problematic and overreaching.

This should be removed.  If something is a violation of applicable law, then the folks responsible for that law should deal with it, not us.  We should be dealing with harassment that impinges on the IETFs creation of standards and not with harassment that has little or no nexus with the IETF.

You have misread the sentence (for which I don't blame you; see below). It is not talking about dealing with acts that are violations of local law. What it says is that the procedures in this document *can* be applied to an act that falls under the definition of harassment that appears in a local law. That is, if a local law says that harassment includes commenting on the stripe pattern of someone's shoes, a person *may* bring a complaint of harassment to the Ombudsteam and ask that these procedures be used.

I did not think that the wording was particularly clear, but it is the wording that the attorneys felt would be legally useful.

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick <http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478